It’s not just the impeachment..apparently prosecutors are beginning to adopt the Democratic Party’s theory that it is appropriate to force a trial when there is no chance at conviction just to stigmatize the accused. This is a clear breach of prosecutor ethics, but ethics schmethics, the ends justify the means, right?
The area in which this despicable strategy is surfacing is—and this should be no surprise—the realm of #Me Too. In Maine, Natasha Irving , who is the top prosecutor for Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and Waldo counties, wants to reform how the legal system prosecutes sexual assault cases, believing all women so those who come forward know they’ll be “supported.” This means, according to Irving, that prosecutors shouldn’t decline to prosecute a sexual assault case just because they “think it’s too hard to prove.”
“Individually, I think that response is very damaging to a survivor,” she says. “If they weren’t believed initially, they don’t have faith that they’re going to be believed if they come forward again. Or that they somehow will be put on trial for what happened instead of the perpetrator. There’s a lot of shame and blame that the victims often carry.”
Yes, that’s a problem. A greater problem is prosecutors bring cases to trial when the don’t have enough evidence to prove the defendant guilty. Then they are just counting on an incompetent jury, which isn’t that much of a longshot. The attitude Irving is endorsing is how black men end up in prison for murders they didn’t commit.
Oh, now, come on… she’s just advocating prosecutions based on the word of a single witness for rape, not murder. Big difference!
No, in fact there’s no difference. The prosecution ethics are exactly the same for all crimes. Applying different standard based on the gender of an accuser is denial of equal rights and an unethical abuse of state power.
Irving says she has simplified the criteria for how her office will prosecute sexual assault allegations to a two-step process:
- Is there a credible allegation?
- Is the victim willing to move forward with prosecution knowing they might have to testify publicly?
Ah. The Kavanaugh approach. The method employed by universities after the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter.
The objective in all this is to smear the alleged perpetrator; this follows the strategy the Democrats followed in their impeachment plot. They knew they didn’t have a cae for impeachment; they knew they would lose the trial in the Senate. But they felt the stigma applied to the President would be worth the effort. Even with the inevitable acquittal, the impeachment would mean “a permanent asterisk” next to Trumps’ name.
An acquittal for rape or sexual assault does not erase the stigma of being tried for such a crime. This using the process as the punishment, setting out to ruin a man’s reputation without just cause. Someone tried for rape may lose his job, family and more. That’s great, Irving says. It will encourage victims to come forward. “We don’t want law enforcement or prosecutors to ever think that something is a ‘he said she said.’” she explains…even when that’s what it is. Irving wants to encourage false accusations because, after all, there aren’t that many of them. “Only” 2%-8% of sexual assault accusations reported to law enforcement turn out to be false, according to Maine’s statistics.
Natasha Irving is unfit to be a prosecutor. She has a toxic bias and conflict of interest, and is advocating conduct that violates the Maine Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7 b (personal conflicts of interest) and 3.8 (Duties of a Prosecutor.)
She must be removed immediately, before she ruins any more lives.
Use the Twitter link to share on Facebook: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1224016350311583746